This short documentary-style video makes the compelling case that America is not in crisis but in transformation, heading into its Fourth Great Reinvention, tipping from old systems to better new ones
i agree that AI, biotech, and energy will lead to big change in a short period of time (using historical precedence).
with great respect for your overall observations, i must say i cannot imagine any significant form of "global governance" for a long time (decades at least).
i base this opinion on these data points:
1. European nations have much in common in our eyes, yet have different languages, cultures, etc. and have a long history of conflict. without the US intervening, and without globalization, i'm skeptical about even the EU becoming a governance model (expanding beyond commerce)
2. the EU can barely keep the economic union together due to conflicting national interests (and national interests are societal interests based on belief systems and cultural preferences)
3. many cultures have a strong past-orientation and their various histories include deep rifts
4. there are at least 2 major global philosophies that conflict about what is right/wrong, good/bad
5. NATO will likely only last as long as the US is part of it - due to conflicting national interests
6. "wealthy" nations would be economically decimated by global wealth distribution
7. the autocratic and monarchical governed nations have to be democratized first... good luck
8. quality and availability of global infrastructure (roads, power, etc.) varies too much
9. religious conflict prevents cooperation between many large and powerful nations
10. the UN is a feckless, bureaucratic, corrupt entity due to many of the items listed above
11. the whole continent of Africa is a disaster examined from any viewpoint
12. most Asians still live in poverty - and lack the concept of individual rights
13. most South Americans live in poverty - and resist being governed
i can add to this list...
considering the factors above, how will AI, biotech, or new energy sources change the world enough to overcome the many rivalries and hatreds that are almost as old as recorded history? especially in 25 years? i just don't see it...
I also do not think that global governance will come within 25 years, and in my 3 hour interview that formed the basis of their 15-minute documentary piece I gave a much more nuanced version of my actual position. But I had no control over the edit of that video, in fact, I only saw the finished product as you did.
I think some form of global governance will evolve over this century, and it won't be one centralized group like the current United Nations. I really don't know what form it will take but I do think that coordinating 10 billion people on this relatively small planet with the pressures of climate change, and future pandemics, etc, will take some kind of governance that crosses national borders.
it is a reasonable observation, but much must change. AI, biotech, and energy might be the needed change agents. the projections i see predict a declining global population by 2100 (way past my time but not my children) long before approaching 10 billion.
i will re-read the essay shortly... ok, we are mostly aligned.
the US founders feared governance. they developed the US government to be weak compared to the individual liberty of "the" people. i'd want much of what they espoused before i'd accept "global governance":
1. distributed governing power across branches and levels (state/local/national)
2. hold people with governing power accountable through the vote
3. originally voting eligibility required having something to lose (equivalent to 21 acres)
nothing in the constitution addresses the ability to accumulate wealth, but since we evolved beyond agrarian societies, nobody in advanced nations want to survive by growing gardens on 21 acres. wealth accumulation is key to individual liberty in contemporary societies.
Peter, I found you with this video on YouTube and we really enjoyed watching it (my very tech savvy husband and I!). One note, and I don’t want to purity test, but the word healthy in the title breaks my heart today, because of all the people losing their healthcare from this bill that just passed.
I hear you. As you know from watching the video, what I said had nothing to do with what Trump and the Republicans did at the end of last week. I published at the beginning of that week with the idea of the July 4th holiday weekend coming up. I thought people might want to watch it over the weekend and see that we in America are going through a much bigger transition that will play out over the next 25 years. Then after my piece went out, the news in DC developed through the week and culminated by Friday. That said, the video has now has 625,000 views. So people seem to like my message despite the current news.
Peter, one area that you haven't covered is the transition of the monetary system needed. Transition from fiat currencies back to hard money - likely led by Bitcoin as digital gold and the end of central banks. I'd love to hear your take on this, as a global currency sure seems to be a key towards that global governance you suggest may be coming.
This video of mine really is not about Trump and the bill that passed last week. I published on Tuesday and that all came about on Friday. That said, I have written an entire essay not related to this video that does put what Trump and MAGA are doing in context. I do not see them as forging the way forward but perhaps they might be playing a role in accelerating the dismantling of the old systems that have structured the country and world for the last 80 years. What I'm mostly talking about is what will come out of this and build over the next 25 years. You can find more in this essay: https://peterleyden.substack.com/p/a-positive-reframe-of-what-trump
: ) clearly it doesn't matter if you voted for him or not. at this point the destruction affects everyone, probably/especially the people who voted for him. unfortunately a vote for trump is as deadly as not voting for him. oops.
i agree that AI, biotech, and energy will lead to big change in a short period of time (using historical precedence).
with great respect for your overall observations, i must say i cannot imagine any significant form of "global governance" for a long time (decades at least).
i base this opinion on these data points:
1. European nations have much in common in our eyes, yet have different languages, cultures, etc. and have a long history of conflict. without the US intervening, and without globalization, i'm skeptical about even the EU becoming a governance model (expanding beyond commerce)
2. the EU can barely keep the economic union together due to conflicting national interests (and national interests are societal interests based on belief systems and cultural preferences)
3. many cultures have a strong past-orientation and their various histories include deep rifts
4. there are at least 2 major global philosophies that conflict about what is right/wrong, good/bad
5. NATO will likely only last as long as the US is part of it - due to conflicting national interests
6. "wealthy" nations would be economically decimated by global wealth distribution
7. the autocratic and monarchical governed nations have to be democratized first... good luck
8. quality and availability of global infrastructure (roads, power, etc.) varies too much
9. religious conflict prevents cooperation between many large and powerful nations
10. the UN is a feckless, bureaucratic, corrupt entity due to many of the items listed above
11. the whole continent of Africa is a disaster examined from any viewpoint
12. most Asians still live in poverty - and lack the concept of individual rights
13. most South Americans live in poverty - and resist being governed
i can add to this list...
considering the factors above, how will AI, biotech, or new energy sources change the world enough to overcome the many rivalries and hatreds that are almost as old as recorded history? especially in 25 years? i just don't see it...
I also do not think that global governance will come within 25 years, and in my 3 hour interview that formed the basis of their 15-minute documentary piece I gave a much more nuanced version of my actual position. But I had no control over the edit of that video, in fact, I only saw the finished product as you did.
I think some form of global governance will evolve over this century, and it won't be one centralized group like the current United Nations. I really don't know what form it will take but I do think that coordinating 10 billion people on this relatively small planet with the pressures of climate change, and future pandemics, etc, will take some kind of governance that crosses national borders.
This essay is a more nuanced way that I think about it: https://peterleyden.substack.com/p/ai-may-bring-civilizational-scale
it is a reasonable observation, but much must change. AI, biotech, and energy might be the needed change agents. the projections i see predict a declining global population by 2100 (way past my time but not my children) long before approaching 10 billion.
i will re-read the essay shortly... ok, we are mostly aligned.
the US founders feared governance. they developed the US government to be weak compared to the individual liberty of "the" people. i'd want much of what they espoused before i'd accept "global governance":
1. distributed governing power across branches and levels (state/local/national)
2. hold people with governing power accountable through the vote
3. originally voting eligibility required having something to lose (equivalent to 21 acres)
nothing in the constitution addresses the ability to accumulate wealth, but since we evolved beyond agrarian societies, nobody in advanced nations want to survive by growing gardens on 21 acres. wealth accumulation is key to individual liberty in contemporary societies.
Peter, I found you with this video on YouTube and we really enjoyed watching it (my very tech savvy husband and I!). One note, and I don’t want to purity test, but the word healthy in the title breaks my heart today, because of all the people losing their healthcare from this bill that just passed.
I hear you. As you know from watching the video, what I said had nothing to do with what Trump and the Republicans did at the end of last week. I published at the beginning of that week with the idea of the July 4th holiday weekend coming up. I thought people might want to watch it over the weekend and see that we in America are going through a much bigger transition that will play out over the next 25 years. Then after my piece went out, the news in DC developed through the week and culminated by Friday. That said, the video has now has 625,000 views. So people seem to like my message despite the current news.
Very optimistic but I like it
i like the optimism, but i will never be ready for global governance replacing nation states...
Peter, one area that you haven't covered is the transition of the monetary system needed. Transition from fiat currencies back to hard money - likely led by Bitcoin as digital gold and the end of central banks. I'd love to hear your take on this, as a global currency sure seems to be a key towards that global governance you suggest may be coming.
how is the current Trump/MAGA/GOP helping or hindering this compelling case? because we only see them as a destructive force at this moment...
This video of mine really is not about Trump and the bill that passed last week. I published on Tuesday and that all came about on Friday. That said, I have written an entire essay not related to this video that does put what Trump and MAGA are doing in context. I do not see them as forging the way forward but perhaps they might be playing a role in accelerating the dismantling of the old systems that have structured the country and world for the last 80 years. What I'm mostly talking about is what will come out of this and build over the next 25 years. You can find more in this essay: https://peterleyden.substack.com/p/a-positive-reframe-of-what-trump
1/3 of americans voted for trump.
1/3 didn't bother to vote against him.
by "we" do you mean the 1/3 that voted against trump?
: ) clearly it doesn't matter if you voted for him or not. at this point the destruction affects everyone, probably/especially the people who voted for him. unfortunately a vote for trump is as deadly as not voting for him. oops.
hoping you'd clarify your meaning since you seemed to be speaking for everybody. the only obvious destruction is military facilities in iran.